Brothers, Sisters, and Comrades, a lot of things have happened in my life over the last year and several months. SubhanAllah there has been the good and the bad, but mash’Allah I am still alive.

More importantly, our Arab brothers and sisters have reminded the world that the working class exists, the working class can fight, that Arabs deserve respect and dignity, that the Arab masses are capable of resisting en masse, and that revolution is not only possible, but necessary.

Ironically, sunhanAllah, just as my participation on this blog should have been skyrocketing, I found myself absent trying to figure out various things going on in my personal life.

In the interim period, I have started a new blog and followed the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Madison, Wisconsin closely.

Hopefully the people who read this blog have already learned to stay informed with the help of Socialist Worker.org and the ISReview.org as well.

There are too many articles to catch up on and try to share here, but please check out these sights for a Marxist analysis of the unfolding events. The actions and victories of our Brothers, Sisters, and Comrades in the Middle East and North Africa has been absolutely amazing. Mash’Allah they have stood up and fought back and demonstrated the capacity of working class people to organize themselves and to democratically work together, beyond boundaries of racism, sexism, and religious division to win the necessary battles to improve life for everyone. Alhamdulillah!

Please see the latest Issue of the international socialist review for in-depth analysis of the events in Egypt at is review.org.

Also, please see my new blog, speeches no one will ever hear.

I started it because I think that the events going on as I write this are radicalizing more and more people towards revolutionary politics. But with a weak Left in the US, many people here do not know how to begin down a road of revolutionary education. I hope my latest blog can help fill that void in whatever modest way possible. Insh’Allah.

The New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA, by its French initials) made headlines when they agreed to run a hijabi candidate.

As a Muslim and a socialist I was absolutely elated to see this. All too often militant atheism is portrayed as being part of the criteria for being a leftist. As a person of faith, this leaves me really pissed off at people.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100203-trotskyist-party-reveals-veiled-woman-candidate-npa-islamic-headscarf-besancenot

That made this story all the more important. Finally, here was a Muslim operating as a leftist. Not just that, but she was in France: one of the most bigoted countries in the world against Muslims. Finally, here was a leftist that had faith and she wasn’t afraid to show it. Moreover, here was a leftist organization that wanted to overthrow capitalism and it wasn’t bigoted against people of faith!

I was so happy. I saw it as an example that there is hope. That it is possible for the left to work with people of faith in general and Muslims in particular.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/12/15/islamophobia-and-the-npa

Then this story came out a few days ago. Ugh. SubhanAllah. I couldn’t believe it. I was heart broken. I really was. The NPA was my ray of hope and all of a sudden I read about how members of the NPA had exposed themselves as Islamophobes, sexists, and militant atheists. The Islamophobia and sexism is obvious in this story. But the most crucial point comes at the end of the interview with the comrade in France:

But old French traditions of left-wingers mocking or hating those who believe in God, and more recent trends toward demonizing Muslims since 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blinding comrades, and they are falling for old divide-and-rule tactics. (emphasis added)

There we have it. Militant atheism plays an important role in this story. But its not just true because this guy says it. Its true because I see it all the time. When my wife and I were both getting pitched the book The Meek and the Militant (a supposed Marxist analysis of religion), things seemed a bit fishy. Afterwards, when a comrade told my wife she’d eventually stop being religious simply because “thats what happens to socialists,” it became a bit clearer. Put more bruskly, I remember comrades talking about burning bibles at a protest and a particular comrade mentioning that she hated all religions and wanting them all to die. She’s quite blunt.

I point all of this out because I think its important to have a complete and sober analysis of the political situation here. Ilham Moussaid and her comrades were pushed out of the NPA for a variety of reasons. Some of them are more obvious: Islamophobia and sexism. But the last one is hardly, if ever, mentioned: militant atheism. Whether or not current members of the left like it, the reality is that major sections of the international working class consider themselves (to one degree or another) people of faith. Whether or not the current left likes that is irrelevant.

The fact is that current economic and political conditions internationally are making it more and more crucial to rebuild an organized and fighting left. This means recruiting members of the international working class, which means recruiting people of faith. To try and sidestep this reality or try and bully people out of their faith is simply insane.

The fact is that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what faith someone identifies with, if any. What matters is what politics a person supports and is willing to fight for or defend. All atheists aren’t progressives and all people of faith aren’t reactionaries (though these are the stereotypes). All people are political and its along the political lines that we figure out who are our (i.e. socialists) allies, who are our enemies, and who is standing in the middle still waiting to be won over to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Asalamu Alaikum.

In this lecture, Deepa Kumar tears apart racist and Islamophobic propoganda against Islam and people’s of the Middle East.

Look her up in google and youtube for other great lectures on topics such as US Imperialism and Oil Politics.

Asalamu Alaikum.

About two years ago I finally stumbled upon the wonderful Halal Tube, which is a great way to educate yourself on the ideas and beliefs of Islam.

Now, mash’Allah this is finally also a similar website for radical Left-wing ideas. That website is WeAreMany.org (see link here and above). The website “We Are Many” provides hours and hours of useful knowledge about the politics, ideas, and science of radical Left-wing politics.

Please check this out to learn more about various topics concerning the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia. As well as finding out more about what we can all do to fight for a world with free health-care, no more borders, no more war, and ultimately a Socialist world.

Insh’Allah everyone is able to take advantage of both of these wonderful websites.

If only I could write half as well as Juan Cole (see link at the very bottom).

This is an incredible blog post regarding the lies in the media after the israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

Some of the best quotes:

…But Gaza isn’t an independent ‘regime’. It is not a state at all. It has no army or navy. It is the height of cruelty for Netanyahu to deny the Palestinians statehood but then to declare that he may half-starve them because he is at war with a Palestinian state!

…In reality, the poor Israelis have gradually become one of the last colonial regimes in the world, and they are acting the way the French did in Algeria or the British did in 1950s Kenya before decolonization. The Israelis have the same chance of ultimate success that the British and French empires had once local people began mobilizing socially and politically, which is to say, none. The French polished off several hundred thousand people during their futile resistance to Algerian independence, and that seems to be where Israel is now headed. Except that France was large, populous and could retreat across the Mediterranean, whereas Israel is small, lacking in manpower, and stuck with defending a postage stamp territory from 300 million Middle Easterners almost all of whom deeply sympathize with the people of Gaza. Netanyahuism can hasten the end of this story, to Israel’s detriment, but can do nothing to stop the rest of the Middle East from getting wealthier, better educated and more militarily sophisticated over the next decade.

According to the Bible, the ancient Israelis once had a prophet, who dared instruct Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” The Israelis have fallen into a shameful role for Jews, playing Pharaoh, denying Palestinians not only food, medicine and cement but the very right of citizenship in a state, which is the basis for all civil and human rights. They have to let those people go. We know what happened to Pharaoh when he refused.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/netanyahu-defiant-still-fighting-ww-ii-hypocrisy-of-netanyahu-lieberman-opposing-terrorism.html

I can’t figure out the date of this blog entry, but I felt the need to share it here.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer242/hamalawy.html

Comrades and Brothers

Hossam El-Hamalawy

Hossam El-Hamalawy is a Cairo-based journalist and blogger.

A joint Muslim Brotherhood and Revolutionary Socialist protest against the Egyptian regime, August 14, 2005. (Nora Younis)

Emad Mubarak is a busy man. Director of the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, and a lawyer with the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, the leftist Mubarak cannot hold a meeting without being interrupted by the ring of his cell phone. The calls these days come from student members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the officially outlawed Islamist group that is Egypt’s largest political movement. The students call to report security service abuses against them on campuses, or to request his legal counsel while they undergo interrogation by university administrators.

“Each time I receive a call, I can’t help but remember the old days and what it was like being on campus with the Brothers,” Mubarak giggles. In March 1999, he spent 22 days in Tura prison south of Cairo after Muslim Brotherhood students assaulted him and eight of his fellow socialists on campus, turning them over to the police. “Today, things are different. Leftists and Islamists can sit down and talk. Most of my clients are Muslim Brothers,” Mubarak said. “I tell them, ‘I’m a communist,’ and they are fine with that.”

From campus fistfights in the 1990s to joint demonstrations in 2005–2006, relations between the Muslim Brothers and the radical left in Egypt have come a long way. In settings where the two tendencies operate side by side, like student unions and professional syndicates, overt hostility has vanished, and there is even a small amount of coordination around tactics. Still, the cooperation remains symbolic, and leftists and Islamists have yet to join forces to undertake sustained mass actions against their common foe, the regime of President Husni Mubarak.

A New Kind of Leftist

The improvement of leftist-Islamist relations can largely be traced to two factors. First is the evolution of a new left in Egypt whose two main pillars are the Revolutionary Socialist Organization and a growing left-leaning human rights community. This new left has different attitudes toward Islamism than those held by the previous “communist waves.”[1] Second is the generational change within both the left and the Brotherhood cadres spurred by the revival of Egyptian street politics, thanks to the second Palestinian intifada.

Bad blood between the Egyptian left and the Brothers has a long history, from the Islamists’ coordination with King Farouq in breaking strikes in the 1940s to President Anwar al‑Sadat’s encouragement of violent Islamist assaults on leftist university students in the 1970s. Most independent leftist organizations in the 1980s and 1990s hewed to a line on political Islam similar to that of the Egyptian Communist Party—the dominant faction inside the “legal left” Tagammu‘ Party—equating Islamist organizations, reformist or radical, with fascism.The only modest exception was Ahmad Nabil al‑Hilali’s People’s Socialist Party, which briefly flirted in the late 1980s with theidea that militant Islam was a “movement for the poor” deserving of support. The majority attitude on the traditional Stalinist left translated into an alliance, sometimes overt and occasionally tacit, with the Egyptian secular intelligentsia—and with Mubarak’s regime. Needless to say, joint political action with the Brothers was never on the table. A few independent leftist lawyers like al‑Hilali and Hisham Mubarak were involved in defending Islamist detainees, but these were individual initiatives. As might be expected, the Muslim Brothers did not appreciate the “fascist” label, and they regarded the left with great distrust.

Starting in the late 1980s, small circles of Egyptian students, influenced by Trotskyism, gathered to study, eventually evolving in April 1995 into an organization named the Revolutionary Socialists’ Tendency. In contradistinction to the Stalinist left, these activists put forward the slogan “Sometimes with the Islamists, never with the state” in the literature they distributed on university campuses and elsewhere.[2] In practice, this slogan translated into taking up the cause of Muslim Brotherhood students on campus when it came to “democratic” issues, as when state security banned Islamist candidates from running in student union elections or expelled Islamist students from school. The “galleries” (ma‘arid)—impromptu broadsheets written on cloth or cardboard and laid out in campus squares—of Revolutionary Socialist students at Cairo and ‘Ayn Shams Universities regularly carried denunciations of military tribunals’ sentences handed down to Muslim Brothers. At the same time, the Trotskyist students confronted the Muslim Brothers on issues such as freedom of expression and the rights of women and Coptic Christians. Whenever they felt the Brothers wanted to impose sex segregation in the classroom, or clamp down on campus theater and art, or whenever the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide made sectarian comments about the Copts, the socialists’ “galleries” would carry vehement denunciations.

As a Revolutionary Socialist member who was active in the 1990s recalls: “We were a kind of leftist the Muslim Brothers hadn’t met before. They couldn’t quite figure us out at the beginning. Anyway, we were still too marginal for them to bother with. We were only a few individuals.” This began to change in 1999. On a few occasions in that year, as one socialist remembers, the Muslim Brotherhood students at Cairo University allowed the Revolutionary Socialist students to speak at rallies held on campus against the US airstrikes on Iraq. The socialist students took this unprecedented opportunity as a sign of the Muslim Brothers’ recognition that they were a force that had to be given a place on the political stage. It was a step in a long, slow process of building trust.

From a handful of members in 1995, the Revolutionary Socialists grew to a couple hundred activists on the eve of the second Palestinian intifada. Their ranks then swelled thanks to their role in the Egyptian movement of solidarity with the Palestinians, at a time when the Muslim Brothers largely abstained from street action. The radicalizing influence of the intifada among youth helped to reawaken the Egyptian tradition of street politics, which had been virtually smothered by the Mubarak regime’s fearsome security services. Cairo and several provinces witnessed their largest and most boisterous demonstrations since the 1977 uprising following President Anwar al‑Sadat’s attempt to remove state subsidies for bread and other staples. Despite the opportunities presented by the ferment on the streets, the Muslim Brotherhood pursued the policy of non-confrontation with the regime it had abided by since the 1995 crackdown on its rank and file, culminating in a series of infamous military tribunals. Not only did Brotherhood students refuse to mobilize on the street, but they also sought on several occasions to curb the militancy of demonstrations. [3] In October 2000, for instance, after the socialists clashed with state security and burned police vans at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Brothers emerged to denounce “socialist sabotage.” At other times, Islamist students tried to physically restrain students from marching outside campus gates.

The increasingly radicalized political scene created a space for the left to intervene, but also generated pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership from the organization’s cadre. Leftist activists then at universities recall “naming and shaming” campus Brotherhood activists for their lack of participation in the mass protests. In early April 2002, precisely following the outbreak of the leftist-led, pro-Palestinian riots at Cairo University, members of the Muslim Brothers began turning out for events organized by the Egyptian Popular Committee for the Solidarity with the Palestinian intifada. “Muslim Brotherhood representatives from the syndicates starting showing up to our meetings,” says Ahmad Sayf, the director of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, who has been hosting the committee’s meetings. “They didn’t have much choice, as they would have lost credibility in their constituencies if they hadn’t turned out. Still, they only sent representatives [usually, ‘Isam al‑‘Iryan or ‘Abd al‑Mun‘im Abu al‑Futouh, the two most popular party elders with Islamist youth] and avoided mass mobilization.” More importantly, Sayf continues, “the Brotherhood was bowing to pressure from its youth, who were not happy with a complacent stand vis-à-vis the authorities.” On April 5, 2002, a group of young Muslim Brothers published an open letter to Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhour in the London-based daily al‑Hayat, questioning the group’s acquiescence in security crackdowns and demanding more involvement in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Sayf concludes: “The alternative was approaching the radicals in the opposition, as the ‘legal’ opposition, namely Tagammu‘, Wafd and the Nasserists, were too hostile. The radicals in the opposition, on the other hand, were happy to get whatever help the Brothers were willing to contribute.”

The Muslim Brothers initially approached Revolutionary Socialist members, regarding them as the “least hostile” among the leftist factions, to suggest that Islamists collaborate with the left in the pro-intifada and anti-war movements. The move triggered a debate among leftist circles. Sympathizers of the Egyptian Communist Party, the People’s Socialist Party, members of the Tagammu‘ bureaucracy and a faction from the human rights organizations refused any form of coordination with Islamists, though they made an exception for Magdi Hussein’s Labor Party, whose brand of Islamism is regarded as somehow “left-leaning.” The usual scene at such demonstrations was that the crowd would split into two circles, one led by leftists and Nasserists chanting leftist slogans, and another led by the Labor Party supporters chanting Islamic slogans. The Revolutionary Socialists, on the other hand, pushed for close coordination, supported by left-wing human rights activists such as members of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center and the Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.

“Brotherly Spirit”

In 2003 and 2004, the Muslim Brotherhood stuck to its non-confrontational policy. While the Brothers kept on sending representatives to pro-Palestinian and anti-war demonstrations, the main concern of the organization was charity work, and demonstrating within the boundaries set by the regime, in complete coordination with the security services. The regime used the group as a safety valve for dissent during the early stage of the ongoing war in Iraq, allowing the Brothers to take part in government-sponsored rallies in Cairo Stadium, as well as in the provinces. Meanwhile, the left-leaning Palestine solidarity committee evolved into an anti-war movement, convening small street actions, which exploded into running clashes with the police in downtown Cairo on March 19 and 20, 2003. The next summer, a middle-ranking Muslim Brothers activist spoke of the increasing frustration among the group’s cadre at the leadership’s “leaving the street empty for the leftists. When Kifaya came onto the scene, some Brotherhood youth wanted to follow suit.”

The anti-war movement, successor of the pro-intifada movement, evolved again by the end of 2004 into an anti-Mubarak movement, composed of two organizations. One was Kifaya (the Egyptian Movement for Change), a coalition made up primarily of members of the breakaway Nasserist faction Karama, individuals from the liberal al‑Ghad Party, figures from the Egyptian Communist Party and veterans of the 1970s student movement. The other wing was the Popular Campaign for Change, which was more Marxist in composition, and included the Revolutionary Socialists, left-wing human rights activists and independent leftists. The two organizations more or less fused together in the months to follow. Kifaya’s sometimes quixotic and theatrical street actions attracted public attention, and helped to break taboos in Egypt’s political life by issuing direct challenges—without euphemisms—to the president and his family.

Shortly after a series of Kifaya demonstrations, a group of Muslim Brotherhood activists, notably ‘Ali ‘Abd al‑Fattah of Alexandria, held talks with Revolutionary Socialists and independent leftists, resulting in the launching of the National Alliance for Change in June 2005. The alliance was tactical, and revolved around an anti-Mubarak platform, with emphasis on vigilance against the prospect of vote rigging in that year’s presidential and parliamentary elections. The fruits of this alliance did not radically alter the political scene on the ground. After announcing their intention to hold a joint demonstration with the left in ‘Abdin Square in July 2005, the Muslim Brothers failed to show up, citing security pressures. Two more joint demonstrations were organized in front of the Lawyers’ Syndicate. The first was chaotic, and the second was better organized, with consensus on slogans and banners. Since the winter 2005 parliamentary elections, the alliance has stayed out of the streets, but it remains in place as a coordination and problem-solving mechanism whenever friction arises in workplaces.

The rapprochement between Islamists and the left continued when students from the Revolutionary Socialists’ Tendency, Muslim Brothers and some independents formed the Free Student Union (FSU) in November 2005, with the aim of acting as a parallel organization to the government-dominated student unions. The FSU was centered in Helwan and Cairo Universities, with tiny presences at a few other universities, including ‘Ayn Shams. Following the rigging of the October 2006 student union elections, the Brotherhood threw its weight behind the FSU, sanctioning new branches at universities such as al‑Azhar, Mansoura and Alexandria. Though the FSU is far from achieving the ambition of its organizers—nothing less than a national grassroots student union—the places where the FSU operates have witnessed another great improvement in relations between the Brothers and the radical left. Mustafa Muhi al‑Din, a socialist activist from Helwan University, describes relations with the Brothers on campus as friendly. “They invite us to their events, and they show interest in our activities. Maybe the union here is still not strong, but there’s space for activities. We can be active and spread our message, worrying about state security, but not about hassles from the Brotherhood, and sometimes they give us a hand. We do the same. This makes things easier.” ‘Abd al‑‘Aziz Mugahid, a Brotherhood activist and president of FSU at Helwan University, speaks enthusiastically of the “brotherly spirit” on campus. “The socialists intervened to help us out in solidarity demonstrations with our sisters who were expelled from the dormitories because they wore the niqab, and they stood by us when the administration expelled more than 400 students for security reasons. These joint activities were not frequent before.”

Generational Change

The backbone of the solidarity actions with the Palestinian intifada has been students in their late teens or early twenties. As political virgins, they do not carry the baggage of the historical fighting between the leftists and Islamists, and among leftist factions.[4]

Meanwhile, the profile of the average young Muslim Brotherhood activist has undergone its own transformation, rendering a considerable number of the Brotherhood youth open for coordination with secular groups. “The Brotherhood cadre has changed,” says Husam Tammam, author of a recent book on the organization.[5] “They have become socially assimilated. They are not necessarily the sons of the poverty belts and the marginalized nowadays.” The Brotherhood’s decisive entry into electoral politics “came at the expense of their identity, forcing them to be more pragmatic,” Tammam adds. “So forget about the Islamic state, the caliphate, and so on. The more the Brothers get dragged into the political arena, the more they are integrated, and the more they try to operate according to the rules of the arena.” Tammam continues: “The Brothers have changed in their relation to art, society and vision. You can see that well among the [Brothers’] youth. The youth voted for [Ghad candidate] Ayman Nour. This wasn’t a central order from the group’s leadership. When the youth are left without orders, they don’t necessarily follow the group’s traditional line. In my view, the last remarkable event held by the Brothers, before they took to the streets, was an event organized by the Brotherhood students called Muhammad Day that took place on Valentine’s Day. The Islamist youth thought, ‘How can we love, but in a “good” way?’ If you compare this to the behavior of the Islamist youth in 1985, it is completely different. Back then all they could think about was how to establish the Islamic state [and] revive the caliphate. They would have looked at Valentine’s Day as a waste of time. The youth today, however, do not take the same aggressive approach.”

Tammam’s observations are echoed by leftists who shared jail cells with young Brothers during the spring 2006 crackdown on the movement in solidarity with Egyptian judges exposing fraud and voter intimidation in the 2005 elections. Blogging about his encounter with Muslim Brotherhood detainees, independent secular leftist ‘Ala’ Sayf wrote: “They were from this new breed of Islamist that reads blogs, watches al‑Jazeera, sings sha‘bi (popular) songs, talks about intense love stories and chants ‘down with Mubarak.’ And being young, most of them did not have any experience with prison before. Waiting to know whether they’ll get 15 or 45 days’ detention for starters, waiting to know whether they’ll be sent to one of the just-horrible prisons or one of the too-horrible prisons, and in the middle of it all we got the news that I would be released the next day.” And with the news of his release, “All of a sudden, they transformed from just Brothers into comrades! They hugged me, they clapped, they shook my hand, they laughed and they were genuinely happy for my release.… When you speak of the 22 who were released this week, don’t say 22 out of 30 were released, say 22 out of 600…facing the same charges and fighting the same tyrants.” The Muslim Brothers’ official website invited ‘Ala’ Sayf to write a message to the Brotherhood youth. On July 24, he wrote them, calling on them to be “more adventurous,” and advocating more militant street action.

Today, the majority of factions on the left still stand opposed to (or express caution about) joint actions with the Islamists, most notably the newly evolving Democratic Left (a reformist tendency centered around al‑Busla magazine), the Egyptian Communist Party, the People’s Socialist Party and a faction of the human rights community. But the Brothers and those comrades who will work with them remain engaged in mutual confidence building. The Muslim Brothers’ leadership is staunchly gradualist, and always on the lookout for compromises with the Egyptian regime. That stance will likely impede a further rapprochement with the radical left, unless the Brotherhood’s base of youth attains a greater say in when, and how, their powerful organization bestirs itself.

[1] Leftist historians divide the history of Egyptian communism into “waves.” The first wave began in 1919 with the founding of the Egyptian Socialist Party, which later became the Egyptian Communist Party, only to be destroyed by the Wafd government’s crackdowns in 1924. The second wave started in the late 1930s with the formation of communist study circles that evolved into several organizations and factions, with brief periods of unity; it ended with the dissolution of the Egyptian Communist Party in 1965. The third wave commenced in 1968 with the revival of the student and worker movements, received a crushing defeat in 1977 and officially died with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The (current) fourth wave started in 1995, with the launching of the Revolutionary Socialist Tendency.

[2] The slogan was coined by Chris Harman, an International Socialist Tendency theoretician based in Britain, in his book, The Prophet and the Proletariat, accessible online at http://www.marxists.de/religion/harman/index.htm. The book was translated into Arabic, and distributed widely by the Revolutionary Socialists in 1997.

[3] See Hossam el-Hamalawy, “Street Politics,” Cairo Times, September 26, 2002; and Hossam el-Hamalawy, “Post-War Middle East,” Islam Online, April 30, 2003.

[4] El-Hamalawy, “Street Politics.”

[5] 5 Husam Tammam, Tahawwulat al‑Ikhwan al‑Muslimin (Cairo: Madbouli, 2005).

One thing I would like to add to this post, which I think is most important in the context of the struggle against SB 1070 in AZ and the recent actions by “The Dream is Coming” activists, is to recommend a focus on fighting for a national moratorium on deportations.

A moratorium on deportations is a tangible goal. Moreover, it is something that can provide (at least) three things.

1) A moratorium on deportations would remove the immediate threat of deportation from the Immigrant Community and the Immigrant’s Rights Movement. This would open up the space within the communities and movement to discuss “what legislation do we really want,” instead of simply “what will we settle for to avoid deportation?“

2) A moratorium on deportations would largely, though not completely, nullify SB1070. The teeth behind that legislation is the way in which it enables racial profiling by police to then immediately deport anyone they deem “looks undocumented.” With a moratorium on deportations, this aspect of SB1070 (the heaviest aspect) would be crushed.

3) A struggle to win a moratorium on deportations creates a unified goal for a movement that is otherwise fractured by support for this or that piece of reactionary legislation. This is something that everyone in the movement can agree on because no one wants to see deportations. Moreover, in the struggle for a moratorium, you also open up new horizons to activists and communities about what activism can accomplish; particularly if we win.

Jazak Allah Khair.

Why the Left should oppose the DREAM Act

The DREAM Act is a point of heated debate within the Immigrant’s Rights (IR) movement. The updated bill summary can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

The DREAM Act has, for many people, been the crutch that keeps the hope alive that some sort of immigration reform is possible. But the reality of the bill is much more sinister than most liberal groups are willing to admit. I wanted to add to the debate around the DREAM Act because at this moment, criticism of it has been relegated strictly to the right-wing, providing open space for a bill which is divisive for our movement, as well as reactionary.

It is important to start off with two points. For one, we need to keep in mind that most of the people that support the DREAM Act are people who genuinely want to create a better world and are people that should be our allies in the movement. Disagreement around this point should be resolved in a creative way and should not be allowed to become an obstruction in the movement.

Secondly, we need to discuss “what is compromise?” Lots of people in all of the current movements are new to politics. The US is a country that has a low level of politics (for example: most other industrialized countries have nationally recognized “labor” or “socialist” parties, whereas the US only has two politically ambiguous parties). The complete absence of an organized left in this country leads many people to look to the Democrats and their brand of “compromise” (i.e. selling-out) as a way for the left to make gains. It is important for us to distinguish between what it means to compromise and what it means to sell-out.

“Compromise” would involve letting go of some or part of our demands, in exchange for getting other demands met. For example, a compromise in the IR movement would be that we would support a bill that gives immediate and unconditional legalization for all people under the age of 25. That way the left-wing wins because they get legalization for some, and the right-wing also feels secure because they beat back legalization for all. No one is hurt by this compromise, but both sides have given up something to “meet half-way.”

“Selling-out” would involve letting go of some or part of our demands and also injuring other communities/movements, in order to get a portion of our demands met. For example, selling-out in the IR movement would be that we support a bill that gives potential legalization for some (based on a complex, hierarchical web of criteria), but forces many of those same people who might benefit from the legislation to murder Iraqis and/or Afghans. A select few would get legalization, but Iraqis and Afghans would be killed in doing so.
————

We need to put the debate around the DREAM Act in its current material context. There are three ongoing aspects to consider: the economy, the wars, and the movements.

The Economy

In Illinois alone, official unemployment is at 12% while nationally it is at 10%. If you factor in people who are stuck in part-time jobs even though they want full time jobs and if you factor in people that have given up on finding a job because of the difficulty, unemployment goes up to 16%. To put this in perspective, during economic “good times,” unemployment hovers around 3-5%. This means that current unemployment is up to 3x higher than normal. With the threat of 16% unemployment we have to add the findings of two new reports: “Young Workers a Lost Decade” and “The Economic State of Young America.”

According to the AFL-CIO’s “Young Workers” study:

• 31% of young workers are making just enough to survive
• 24% of young workers are not making enough to cover basic expenses
• A third of young workers reported living with their parents
• 2 in 5 young workers reported delaying education because of their financial situation
• According to the liberal Demos think tank study “The Economic State”:
• Young workers between the ages of 25-34 used to earn about $43,416 a year in 1975 (adjusted for inflation)
• Young workers between the ages of 25-34 earned about $35,100 a year in 2004
• This is about $10,000 less than in the 1970s!!!

Whats worse is that what we have lost in our paychecks we have tried to make up for with credit cards and loans. The “Economic State” study continues:

• Young workers 25-34 us 25cents for every dollar spent on DEBT.
• Young workers under 34 have an average debt of $8,000
• Young workers under 34 have an average student loan debt of $14,671

As Adam Turl pointed out in  a recent Socialist Worker article titled “Stuck at the Bottom and No Way Up,” many young workers took on thousands of dollars of debt hoping that a degree would get them a good job with good pay to take care of the debt and provide a brighter future. 16% unemployment and a stagnant economy has destroyed that hope.

To get more of a perspective on how the current economic crisis has also affected education, the LA Times has posted some interesting information regarding tuition costs at the national level.

According to the LA Times:

• Florida tuition will go up 15%
• University of Illinois tuition will go up 9%
• University of Washington tuition will go up 14%
• California state wide will see tuition go up 30% (which the LA times points out has already sparked 1960s style protests across the state)

The Wars in the Middle East

There is also the context of the ongoing invasions and occupations in the Middle East. Obama has not ended the war in Iraq and he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by assigning 30,000 more troops to be deployed there. On top of this, the US has begun bombing in Pakistan and Yemen and continually threatens Iran with war.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have recently had elections that are praised by the US as victories for democracy, but that are considered by all other observers as sham elections or further evidence of instability in those countries. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai’s re-election was internationally recognized as a fraud. In Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki’s failure to be re-elected shows the burgeoning resistance in Iraq that is making its voice more powerful by the day.

None of these wars look “winnable” for the US and both have the potential to drag on for years or even decades. On top of all of this, the US has begun bombing in Pakistan and Yemen and continually threatens Iran with war. So not only is the US military bogged down in two losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it looks possible that the fronts of war could be expanded beyond.
This means that the US will need a constant and consistent supply of warm bodies to fill soldier’s uniforms and kill or be killed for the oil companies and US political control of the Middle East.

The Immigrants Rights Movement

The last point of context for the conditions under which The DREAM Act is being proposed and championed by some is the actual state of the Immigrants Rights movement itself. In particular we need to focus on what the Immigrant Youth Justice League (IYJL) has been able to accomplish.

The IR movement has sustained itself since the mass-marches of 2006 to stop the Sensenbrenner Bill, but most of the movement has been diverted by the Democratic party into “getting out the vote” for Democrat candidates. This has been a part of the major success of the Democratic Party which took control of the House of Representatives and the Senate back in 2006, and took control of the White House in 2008 with Obama.

Since then, absolutely nothing has happened. If anything, the raids and deportations have increased. This has left the IR movement disoriented because most of its leadership had centered itself completely on the Democrats. Now that they haven’t lifted a finger for the undocumented in the last FOUR YEARS, many people are confused as to how to move forward. Most noticeably, this has left the IR movement angry and eager to take some sort of action.

Here in Chicago, this frustration and desire to move forward has manifested itself in the creation of IYJL. IYJL is an organization of documented and undocumented activists that have initiated and organized “coming out” events so that undocumented youth can “come out of the shadows” about their undocumented status. The organization was born out of the specific struggle to keep Rigo Padilla from being deported but has since branched out into the broader struggle of the IR movement.

IYJL has existed since about October 2009. Since then IYJL done the impossible over and over again:

• We formed a group of documented and undocumented youth
• The group is predominantly undocumented and is predominantly high school – early college age
• We kept Rigo from being deported
• We organized the first youth-led IR march in the US on 3/10/10
• Our organizing for the march  on 3/10 inspired the march on 3/21 which drew out AT LEAST 200,000 people in DC
• We’ve inspired coming out actions nationally
• IYJL’s main slogan “undocumented and unafraid” even made it to the NY Times
 and has spread internationally

A year ago, no one would have believed that any of these things could be accomplished. Even the very idea of a group of active undocumented youth standing up to the threat of deportation, speaking out, and taking the struggle to the streets would have been “unrealistic” to consider a year ago. To add on top of that the defense of Rigo, the success of 3/10, and the mega-success of 3/21 is completely unprecedented for one little group based in Chicago’s Pilsen.

Everything IYJL has accomplished has been won by grassroots, collective action. Its been the dedication to being bold, “undocumented and unafraid,” and militant. When others wouldn’t march, we did. When others wouldn’t challenge the current situation, we did. We did it by discussing, debating, and organizing democratically and from the grassroots. This is a model that can be used around the country or even around the world. This also kicks off the mission of establishing new IYJL branches in schools and communities.

An added benefit of IYJL has been that it has become a vehicle to train a new generation of activists to get trained in politics and practical activism (how to lead chants, how to build a march, how to lead a march, how to build an organization, how to operate democratically, etc.). We have been able to organize and train high school and college students on the basics of activism and organizing and all of this helps in rebuilding the Left.

All of these things make up the context under which The DREAM Act is debated: the disastrous economy, the ongoing wars in the Middle East, and the power of the IR movements and the ability of one little organization to revive an entire movement with the first 6 months of its existence.

Arguments against The DREAM Act

• Green Card Soldiers

The poverty The DREAM Act is the main reason most people join the military. Particularly in a bad economy where both jobs and education are hard to access, the military offers a steady job for 3-4 years and the potential to have higher education paid for through the GI Bill. This creates intense pressure to join the military in and of itself. When you also factor in the fact that communities of color, which often include immigrant and undocumented groups, are usually more affected by economic pressures, the push towards the military becomes even stronger.

In spite of the current Great Recession, many have still resisted joining the military (for political and practical reasons). But for many undocumented youth, The DREAM Act would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. It would make resistance to the military absolutely unbearable because not only would they have a secure job and the potential for education (if they survive physically and psychologically), but now they might even get their papers.

Some sections of the Left have made the argument that communities of color are the constant prey of the military anyway, so this isn’t anything new. But considering that for many the The DREAM Act would be an intense and unfair added burden towards the military, that argument is at best cynical and at worst an outright deception to make it seem “not so bad.” To deliberately place that kind of burden on undocumented youth would be nothing less than disgusting.

• The Muslim and Middle Eastern communities

We have to look at The DREAM Act from the perspective of everyone it would affect which means we have to look at the bigger picture by putting ourselves in other people’s shoes. In this case, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the Muslim and Middle Eastern communities, both in the US and abroad. Never forget: immigration is an international issue (especially when immigration legislation puts immigrants on planes to bomb other people in far away countries).

To people living in Iraq and Afghanistan, The DREAM Act is a slap in the face. The legislation implies that is okay to kill Iraqis and Afghans if it will get a select few a possibility for legalization. In fact it is not just a slap in their face, it is a bomb or a bullet in their face; quiet literally. The DREAM Act tells Iraqis and Afghans that the US IR movement thinks that their lives are worthless and that killing them is a legitimate path to legalization.

This is the same message that the IR movement sends to Iraqis and Afghans living here in the US. Even worse, for the people that have moved to the US to escape the wars in their home countries, this is a pressure for them to join in the massacre of their brothers and sisters back home.

For the Middle Eastern community or people from Muslim backgrounds, this is an assault on their brothers and sisters, whether or not the individual is from Iraq or Afghanistan (not to mention Yemen, Pakistan, and Iran). The Middle Eastern and Muslim communities have been under constant assault since 9/11 by racists, cops, FBI, ICE, CIA, etc. In addition to all of these oppressors, the IR movement treats them as a bargaining chip in the struggle for legalization.

This is such a crucial issue, because The DREAM Act deepens the already existing racialization of the IR movement as being a Latino-only issue. If the US invaded Mexico, people would never support the The DREAM Act. But because the wars are in the Middle East, they are seen as abstract and “not affecting the movement.” This completely ignores the Muslim and Middle Eastern immigrants in the US, especially their undocumented who suffer the same or worse pressures as the Latino community.

This also ignores the long and brutal history of US invasions and sabotage all over Latin America. To list a few, there have been the civil wars and dictatorships that the US created or helped create in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Haiti. To name a few. The US military is not, and has never been, the friend of Latinos and Latin America.

Imagine how endorsing The DREAM Act makes the Muslim and Middle Eastern communities feel about the IR movement?

• The Anti-War Movement

The other aspect of the bigger picture is observing what other movements the IR movement is existing alongside and should be working with. One of the historic compliments to the IR movement is the Anti-War (AW) movement. The DREAM Act is a complete assault on what they are trying to do, which is prevent recruitment to the military and end the wars and occupations in the Middle East.

One of the major tactics of the AW movement is to organize “counter-recruitment” at military recruiting stations. This usually means doing something as basic as getting a group of people to stand in front of recruiting stations and use picket signs and chants to prevent military recruiters from reaching out to various communities. The DREAM Act does the exact opposite by encouraging undocumented youth to join the military which helps perpetuate the wars by adding an incentive that very few would be able to refuse: a potential path to legalization. While the AW movement tries to stop the war, The DREAM Act promotes it.

There are two other things to consider here. 1) Many of the undocumented in this country are refugees from countries that the US has destabilized or helped to destabilize (i.e. Palestine, Honduras, Somalia). 2) During the last major upsurge of the IR movement in the 1980s, it was the unity between an AW movement and the IR movement that was able to win the Immigration Reform and Control Act (although there were many flaws with IRCA).

It is the very communities and movements that The DREAM Act attacks that we need to be linking up with. We need the help of the Muslim and Middle Eastern communities, as well as the help of the AW movement to win real immigration reform.

• Divide and Conquer

This is precisely why The DREAM Act is a useful tool for the Democratic Party and for the US ruling class. With The DREAM Act the Democrats can simultaneously look like they are doing something to help out the immigrant communities (and their allied voters), while also sticking to the demands of the ruling class to continue the wars and persecute immigrants and the working class as a whole. They also get to reinforce the political idea that immigrants are a burden and that to get legalization they need to “earn” it.

All of this not only pits the IR movement against other communities and movements, but it also pits activists within the IR movement against each other! This is one of the most insidious aspects of The DREAM Act because it forces the movement to tear itself apart instead of working together. Inevitably some activists will feel a desperate pull to support The DREAM Act in the hopes that its watered down demands and selling out other groups will make it more palatable to the ruling class. Given the horrible physical and psychological impact that being undocumented has on people, this is completely understandable. But the reality is that in practice this only divides the movement.

Invariably, as some people will look with desperation to The DREAM Act, others will refuse to break with their principals. That is one of the main cruxes of problem with The DREAM Act. Some of us refuse to sell out other communities and other movements to possibly help out a select few. If something goes completely against an individual’s or an organization’s principals, you cannot simply demand of them to break with their principals for the facade of unity. Unity and solidarity have to be forged out of common interests, common goals, and mutual RESPECT. You cannot force someone to simply drop their principals, and that is the predicament that IR activists run into regarding support or opposition to The DREAM Act while trying to work together for legalization for all.

• Illegitimate path to legalization

To wrap up, you cannot endorse a bill that legitimizes murdering Middle Easterner people as a “fair” path to legalization and expect everyone to join in the support, or force people to support that. Killing Iraqis and Afghans is neither a fair nor legitimate path to legalization. It is also not a compromise. It is murder and it is treachery. I believe this as a human, as a Muslim, and as a socialist.

But opposing The DREAM Act is not enough. We also have to create other ways forward that can actually be agreed on democratically by all communities and movements to help connect us and help us work together on mutually beneficial projects.
Thinking creatively, moving Forward
Sometimes the best way to figure out what you want, is to start by looking at what you don’t want. So what doesn’t work about The DREAM Act?

• It pits activists, communities, and movements against each other
• Promotes death and war
• Deepens the marginalization of the Middle Eastern community
• It reinforces the idea that immigrants must “earn” their legalization
It does nothing to address the issues of the border itself and the actual reasons people immigrate in the first place

There are two ways to approach the next steps: short term and long term.

Short Term

We need to begin uniting the movements. Historically, one of the closest and most important allies in the fight for legalization has been the anti-war movement. During the 1980s, when the US was funding and executing a counter-revolutionary war against the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua, both the AW and IR movements aided the Nicaraguan refugees.

Here in the US, the IR movement responded to this refugee crisis by starting up a sanctuary movement in defense of the undocumented Nicaraguans. The AW movement responded by opposing the “Contras” that were being supported by the US.

This was a synthesis that needs to be rebuilt. In the short term, this can mean taking basic steps like endorsing and promoting ant-war marches and protests.

IR groups don’t have to adopt anti-war policies as points of unity, but they can commit to bringing IR contingents to AW protests.  An IR contingent can come to an AW protest and carry signs that read: “war causes immigration” or “no more war, no more borders,” or even simply “immigrants against war.”

By simply having that presence at an AW event, as a coherent IR contingent, we create bonds of solidarity that can extend into future work and activity together. This can create ties of solidarity that will ensure that the AW movement does the same at our IR marches and protests.

Raising a presence at the AW events can also embolden members of the Middle Eastern communities to see allies in both movements and cut through their isolation and hyper-oppression. This could reinforce all of the movements and help push forward a new anti-racist movement in the process! That could only benefit everyone.

These same basic strategies could be applied to all of the other ongoing movements for unions, women’s rights, Gay liberation, single-payer-for-all, public education, etc. Whereas an injury to one is an injury to all; a gain for one is a gain for all.

Long Term

Unity and our own Legislation – The recent struggles to defend Rigo from deportation, the call for the first youth-led march for IR rights in the nation on 3/10, and the mass mobilization of 3/21which was inspired by 3/10 has both raised the profile of the IR movement in general and the position of IYJL within the movement. Everyone knows that the IR movement is back on the scene, and that IYJL is at the heart of this reawakening.

This means IYJL is in an important position and it needs to wake up to its potential.

These past struggles forced IYJL to interact and create ties with various groups at the local and national level. This means that IYJL is now able to begin to propose things to the movement itself.
Regarding the debates within the movement, IYJL is in a position to begin calling (at least) a mid-western conference to discuss IR issues and politics, and to start the discussion about what an actual grassroots, organic legislation would look like as written by the movement.

Regarding the overall stance of the IR movement, IYJL is in a position to help forge unity around the issue of immediate and full legalization for all. This is important because right now, the movement is fragmented.

The movement is confused about whether it should begin to do voter drives to relect some Democrats and pray they actually do something, or pushing hard for watered down and disgusting legislation in the hopes for minor benefits, or pushing forward on the principals of full and immediate legalization for all. This is the opportunity for IYJL to unite this movement around immediate and full legalization for all and get past the fragmentation of the movement.

Immediate halt to all Deportations – Another aspect of the next steps forward is that the movement itself is now in a position to at the very least, demand an immediate moratorium on all deportations. This is a lowered demand, but it is a demand that everyone can agree on and see as essential in the most immediate sense. Moreover, it is something that the more conservative elements of the movement can see as “realistic” because the demand can be focused around pushing Obama to issue an executive order to immediately halt all deportations.

Whether groups or individuals are for The DREAM Act or against borders all together, they can all agree that halting deportations is crucial.

Rebuilding the Sanctuary Movement – At the end of the day, the purpose of uniting the movements, communities, and organizations comes down to two crucial points. 1) We need mass movements to win REAL reforms instead of the reactionary “reforms” that are on the table right now. 2) Part of building that mass movement and working with that  mass movement involves rebuilding the sanctuary movement.

Sanctuary – In the 1980s, the corner stone of the IR movement was providing sanctuary for the undocumented so that they would not be deported. Providing sanctuary is not easy. It requires lots of effort, lots of money, volunteers, publicity, etc. This is part of why the IR movement needs to spread out, recruit, and win partners in other communities and movements. We cannot physically and financially do it alone. Building sanctuaries in all major cities and in every state has to begin now, at least at the level of discussion.

The IR movement, like every movement, will reach a point where it has to confront the issue of applying the tactic of civil disobedience for symbolic purposes, to make concrete demands, and to literally keep people from deportation. Every movement comes to a point where it has to raise the level of militancy and intensity, and rebuilding the sanctuary movement will become the corner stone of the IR movement soon, just as it was in the 1980s.

The big difference is that now we have the history and analysis to show us what we can win and what we shouldn’t settle for. In the 1980s, the mass movement, due to its own uncertainty and miscalculation (among other reasons), settled for IRCA. IRCA benefited about 3 million undocumented workers in short term.

A world without Borders – In the end, what we have to do is develop a movement that challenges the very logic of borders. Border security is a right-wing demand and it has to be treated as such. Immigrants don’t need border security. Worker’s don’t need border security. The border is just an illusion used to promote patriotism, nationalism, and racism.

They also don’t actually stop immigration. Border security is like the war on drugs: it doesn’t stop anyone, it only criminalizes people and weakens the entire working class. As long as a line exists that criminalizes one person as an immigrant and pits them against a “native,” then the immigrant’s rights movement will never end. To make the movement a complete success, we have to remove all borders. The European Union has begun to show us how this could be worked out because they have eliminated borders for all member states. If it can be done in the EU without a revolution, then it can be done here as well.

In the long term it screwed over the entire US working class and particularly squeezes the existing 12 million undocumented people in the US.

This time we need to reach the same level of mass struggle, but we need to realize the solutions that we really need: no more deportations, no more borders, and legislation of our own.

Conclusion

What does The DREAM Act mean to an Iraqi child living in Baghdad? What does the The DREAM Act mean to a young person in Afghanistan? To them, it means the end of their lives. To them it means their lives are expendable, if it might possibly get a few young people legal status here. When discussing The DREAM Act we have to look at the bigger picture, and the people most affected by The DREAM Act will by the youth of Iraq and Afghanistan, not the undocumented youth in the US. That is the bottom line. The military component is not just a “component.” That makes it sound small and insignificant.

In the context of the failing economy with rising unemployment and rising tuition, the military component, in practice, becomes the main event. It is not just a little component to be glossed over, it is in fact the most important part of the The DREAM Act. This sort of unprincipled selling out is what is dividing and disorienting the movement and creating divisions in it where they otherwise would not exist.

We need to continue to broaden the struggle, to pull new individuals and groups into it and to work together openly and democratically. This is the time to be as inclusive and outward as possible. This is the time to accomplish the impossible, because the brief history of IYJL has shown that we will be the ones that define what is realistic and unrealistic, and we shouldn’t let the politicians and the defeatists dictate it for us.

Everything IYJL has done up until now has been absolutely stunning and absolutely “unrealistic,” and yet we did it.

We can stop deportations, we can unite the movements/communities/organizations, we can create our own legislation, and we can reignite a sanctuary movement. The only ones stopping us are ourselves, so lets get to it.

We’ve shown them that we are willing to fight, but by holding ourselves back with reactionary legislation, we show that we aren’t confident enough to win. But a march of over 200,000 people that was called last minute and inspired by a rag-tag group of kids in Chicago shows that we have incredible power and that only can we fight, but that we can win. We have to show them that we are willing to fight, and that we are determined to win!

A journalist asked me a question during an interview the other day. The question was simply meant to be a matter-of-fact question. For example “what is your name?” But as soon as I was asked the question, something clicked in my head that made me realize that the very question itself got at the root of the issue of immigration.
—————

Where are you From?

“Were you born here? Are you documented? Where are you from?”

To look at me, you wouldn’t know if I was born here or somewhere else. You wouldn’t know what language I grew up speaking. You wouldn’t know if my parents were from Latin America, the Middle East, India/Pakistan, Central Asia, or some combination.

“Where are you from?”

I refuse to answer that question. That question is at the core of what we’re struggling against. That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter where I am from. It doesn’t matter how long I’ve been here or what language I speak.

The real question is not “where are you from?” The real question is “Where are you?”

The answer is that I am here, with you. We’re in this together, whether you like it or not. We’re in this together and we need to work together because I am here with you. If we don’t work together then they will turn us against each other and split our organizations, break up our movements, bring down all of our wages, take away all of our civil liberties, and take away all of our civil rights.

But there is also another question.

“Where are you going?”

I am going to a place with a living wage. I am going to a place where everyone is in a union. I am going to a place with no more war. I am going to a place where health care and education are free. I am going to a place where Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered ,Queer and Intersexed people have the same rights as straights. I am going to a place where abortions are free and on demand for whatever reason a woman has. I am going to a place with no more racism, sexism or homophobia. I am going to a place with no more borders.

But to get there I need you and you need me, regardless of where I am from and where you’re from. Regardless of the color of our skin, the languages we speak or the places that we were born. Documented or undocumented, we are in this fight together.

This goes beyond your identity or mine. This goes beyond your personal struggle or mine. If we let them divide us then we let them bring down all of our wages and strike down all of our civil rights. That is why we need to march, protest, and resist together. That is why documented and undocumented have to march arm-in-arm. Just as men and Women, Gays and straights, all races and ethnicities. Regardless of where we are all from, we are all here together.

Where am I from? It doesn’t matter. Where am I? I am here, with you. Where am I going? I am going to a better world. But I can only get there with you and you can only get there with me. We need to put our differences aside. We need to stop them from pitting us against each other to conquer us both. We need unity and solidarity to fight for a better world.

A better world is possible, but we can only get there together: Solidarity!